This piece for Liberty Features Syndicate originally cleared August 31st.
The Democrats’ most recent drive for health care reform many have dubbed “Obamacare” centers on the “public option”, a step many leftists feel is necessary to soften America’s resistance to their overall goal of nationalized health care similar to that found in Canada or Great Britain.
While the on-again, off-again prospect of government-backed competition to private insurance defines progress of this rendition of reform to those on the Left, arguably that desired end result of socialized health care is already here – embodied in the Veterans Administration. In return for their military service, the men and women who served in our armed forces have the option of a lifetime of care in facilities open primarily to them and, aside from a trifling co-pay based on income, essentially paid for by the federal government.
In most cases the VA provides our veterans the top-notch care they need. But the VA’s resources have strained more and more from a huge influx of casualties from war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the VA bureaucracy has been slow to catch up, at times leaving veterans in worse shape than they were upon entering the system.
The poster child for VA incompetence was revealed back in 2007 when a Washington Post investigation detailed horrific conditions at Building 18 of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center; a litany which included black mold, rodent infestation, and outright neglect by overworked staff. While Democrats took glee in blaming the Bush Administration for the conditions and used Building 18 as another example of a war the Left considered wrong, the critics failed to bring up an obvious point – government-run health care was shown once again to be inferior to that being performed by the private sector. Health facilities in private hands would quickly be shut down if left in that dilapidated condition for any length of time.
However, Building 18 was not intended as part of the Walter Reed campus when built. It was originally a motor lodge but when Walter Reed needed additional space in the late 1980’s the building was purchased and converted for usage as an outpatient recovery facility. The demand for care at Walter Reed increased significantly once hostilities in the Middle East began and government inertia proved to be the largest obstacle to recovery for those scarred by battle.
Other complaints about VA treatment usually stem from a lack of accessibility, particularly for veterans who choose to live in more rural areas. Many times they are forced to drive hours for “free” treatment, bypassing several facilities which could have provided the same service but aren’t connected to the Veterans Administration.
The VA example brings up a point usually lost in the debate over providing cradle-to-grave health care for all: are facilities and manpower going to be available for all those who desire it? We already face a shortage of those wishing to go into health care professions and that lack of manpower promises to become more acute as America’s population – including veterans already in the VA system – becomes grayer and sicker.
If health care truly needs reform, perhaps the best route to proving the worth of government solutions would be to concentrate reform on the systems already in place – certainly there’s a lot in Medicaid, Medicare, and health care through the Veterans Administration which could stand change well before subjecting the rest of us to the inertia and red tape bureaucracy always brings.
Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.
One quibble — Walter Reed isn’t part of the VA. It’s part of the Army’s medical service. There are plenty of problems with the VA (although it has gotten better over the years) and the Walter Reed scandal does point to problems with government health care, but Walter Reed’s problems don’t have anything to do with the VA.
A better example of your main point is what is happening in Massachusetts. With the large number of people forced onto insurance or who have been provided with insurance thanks to Mitt Romney’s health care law debacle, there has been a large increase in demand for medical services. That has led to instances where people can’t find doctors or must wait a long time for the service they need (or, more accurately, desire — there is a lot of debate about whether an increased demand for health care is really a response to a real need or whether it’s just people using something that now has little direct cost for them).
This whole health care debate was started by Pres. Obama because our governmental health care costs are rising at an unsustainable pace. But expanding coverage to people and lessening their direct cost will only exacerbate this trend. If you want to bring costs down and reduce spending, you make consumers bear more of the cost of treatment. There are plenty of studies that show when you do this, not only does cost go down but there is little (if any) negative consequences for individuals’ health status.
It’s a quibble I realized while doing the research but decided to go ahead with it anyway because most people lump the Army medical system and VA together. You’re the one in 100 who would recognize the distinction. People remember the sensational, whereas if I used your example it wouldn’t be as potent or convincing.
While you bring up a point I agree with, given the fact I had 600 words to use I couldn’t bring your part of the argument into the whole. Moreover, I’d prefer to shrink the government system and bringing the so-called “reforms” into government-run health care may convince people that they get what they pay for with “free” health care.
Yeah, the length of an op-ed doesn’t give you a lot of chance to really flesh out the nuance of many issues.
While I had a minor quibble with your article, you know that I agree with its main point. Government health care in this country, including Medicare, offers sub-standard care at a very high price. Every Congressman who advocates for expanding government health care should be forced to go onto Medicaid and see how great that care is.